Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2016 at 15:06:34 (UTC).

STEVEN J. REVITZ ET. AL. VS. DR. BENNY NEWMAN ET. AL.

Case Summary

On 11/15/2012 STEVEN J REVITZ filed an Other lawsuit against DR BENNY NEWMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ALLAN J. GOODMAN and NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9086

  • Filing Date:

    11/15/2012

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ALLAN J. GOODMAN

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

REVITZ STEVEN J.

STEVEN J. REVITZ CORP.

RAISKIN & REVITZ

Defendants

MOKHTARZADEH SHAHROKH

MOKHTARZADEH SHAHROKH LAW OFFICES OF

NEWMAN DR. BENNY

NEWMAN BENNY

NEWMANI BEHROOZ

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

REVITZ STEVEN J.

CHEONG DENOVE ROWELL & BENNETT

Defendant Attorneys

MOKHTARZADEH SHAHROKH

ERNEST J. FRANCESCHI JR.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2016
  • Miscellaneous-Other (MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. REVITZ ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2016
  • Declaration (OF SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH IN SUPPORT OF DEFT'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND/OR COSTS ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2016
  • Opposition (TO PLTF'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND/OR COSTS BY DEFTS, SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH & LAW OFFICES OF SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, A PLC; ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2015
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. REVITZ ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2015
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2015
  • Ex-Parte Application (TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING DATE OF CMC/TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE OF AUGUST 12, 2015 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2015
  • Order (ON EX PARTE APPLICATION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2015
  • Notice of Motion (AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2015
  • Remittitur filed (COURT OF APPEAL REVITZ IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER HIS COSTS ON APPEAL APPEAL IS REVERSED ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 01/29/2013
  • Memo points & authorities (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Motion to Strike (PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Memo points & authorities (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Demurrer (TO COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Declaration (OF SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2012
  • Declaration Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2012
  • Declaration Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC119086    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Steven J. Revitz vs. Dr. Benny Newman

Hearing Date – January 11, 2021

Motion to Reclassify

The prior ruling was set aside and the matter set for hearing on 1/11/21. No briefs addressing the substantive merits of the motion were received. The ruling of 6/24/20 remains the tentative of the court.

Case Number: SC119086    Hearing Date: December 03, 2020    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Revitz et al. v. Newman et al., Case No. SC119086

Hearing Date December 3, 2020

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Court’s June 24, 2020 Ruling

Defendants filed a motion to reclassify this case as a limited civil action, arguing damages could not exceed $25,000. The motion was set for April 21, 2020 but continued to June 24, 2020. Plaintiff was to give notice of the continuance. The court denied the motion. Defendants argue the ruling should be set aside because they never received notice of the continued date.

A court may “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b).

Defendants argue they were deprived of an opportunity to argue the Walker motion because neither the court nor plaintiff provided notice of the hearing’s continuation to June 24, 2020. Plaintiff provides an email purportedly sent by Shahrokh Mokharzadeh to plaintiff’s counsel, stating the hearing had been continued to 6/24/20. Revitz Declaration ¶4, Ex. 1. This suggests defendants were aware of the hearing date.

However, plaintiff does not dispute his failure to provide notice of the hearing as directed by the court, and counsel’s declaration indicates no notice was given. Mokhtarzadeh reply decl. ¶9. Defendants’ failure to appear at the June 24, 2020 hearing is excusable. The June 24, 2020 ruling is set aside, and a hearing set for ___________. GRANTED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: SC119086    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Steven J. Revitz et al. v. Dr. Benny Newman, Case No. SC119086

Hearing Date 6/24/2020

Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify Action

Defendant Newman sued former counsel, Steven J. Revitz and Steven J. Revitz, a Professional Corporation (“Revitz”) for malpractice. Revitz prevailed in the underlying action, recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Revitz now sues for malicious prosecution, and Newman moves to case reclassify as a limited civil action on the grounds that the damages sought cannot possibly exceed $25,000. Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §403.040 a matter may be reclassified if there is a “legal certainty” plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000.00. Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 272.

Defendant argues plaintiffs did not suffer damages as a result of the malpractice action. Plaintiffs provide evidence of emotional distress and increased malpractice insurance premiums. Plaintiffs show a possibility of recovering more than $25,000. Motion DENIED.

IN LIGHT OF THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENTS VIA COURTCALL.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RAISKIN & REVITZ is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FRANCESCHI ERNEST J. JR